Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Lucas Wyrsch Date: Sep 3, 2004 2:34pm
Forum: election_2004 Subject: How to defeat Bush?

Don't elect him!
To increase traffic between your homepage and Kerry's campaign site, add a banner!
Banner 468x60

Banner 120x80

Banner 336x280

Banner 160x600

Banner 88x31




This post was modified by Lucas Wyrsch on 2004-09-03 21:34:45

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jackgrimes2004 Date: Sep 7, 2004 12:41am
Forum: election_2004 Subject: Re: How to defeat Bush?

Kerry is scum too. He's no better than Bush. Like Bush, he's a member of the satanic "Skull & Bones Society". He voted for this madness in the Gulf, Bush started for no reason. Kerry, if elected says, he will continue to fight the "War on Terror", which means oppressing the public without cause, as this country NEVER suffered any actual terrorist attacks.

I want you to vote for me Jack Grimes, the UNITED FASCIST UNION candidate and give America something really different, FASCISM.

VOTE FASCIST 2004!!!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Lucas Wyrsch Date: Sep 24, 2004 8:22pm
Forum: election_2004 Subject: Re: How to defeat Bush?

Don't we all know that Kerry leads online?
Yes, we do!
Why this question?
Just because each time I look to charts like Steven Ruggles 2004 Presidential Election Graphs in general and the Historical Bush Approval Ratings (2001-2004) in particulr. I wonder how George Walker Bush can win in such a bearish scenario?
But what's more is that John Kerry is the candidate of the future time of the Information and Communication Technology and George Walker Bush the candidate of the past time of BAM (Brick and Mortar) Industrial Revolution.

Yes, I liked Arik Hesseldahl's most recent article The Addictive Internet! I found there the same elements as the ones that are discussing between the Republicans and the Democrats!

It occurred to me this week that it has been exactly ten years since I was first seriously ridiculed for liking the Internet. "This has to do with the Internet how?" was the smarmy question a coworker asked me in the fall of 1994, mocking my enthusiasm for what was then the relatively new cultural phenomenon of sending e-mail, browsing the Web and so on. Another shrill colleague offered the unsolicited opinion that I was "addicted" to the Internet, and called it a waste of time. At the time I was a young reporter for a daily newspaper in a dusty little college town in southeastern Idaho that the great "Information Superhighway" had seemingly passed by. It was a place where personal computers were thought of as a luxury that only students with good scholarships could afford. In most of the town's blue-collar households, PCs were considered an impractical, even useless, extravagance. Microsoft and AOL did not yet qualify as household names in this corner of the world, and my ideas for Internet-related stories were often met with blank stares from editors more interested in stories about the opening of a new doughnut shop in town. If indeed I was addicted, then I was simply ahead of the curve, as the results of a study on "Internet Deprivation" released this week appear to show. It was sponsored by Web portal Yahoo! and advertising agency OMD, and carried out by consumer research outfits Ipsos-Insight and Conifer Research. The study tracked the reactions of people in 1,000 U.S. households to going without an Internet connection for 14 days. The study was difficult to carry out in the first place--many declined to take part because they weren't willing to cut themselves off from the Net for such a long time. Nearly half the people surveyed in a separate portion of the study said they couldn't do without the Internet for two weeks. The longest they thought they could go was about five days. The people surveyed in this study were accustomed to constant Internet access and generally felt confident, secure and empowered as a result, its authors argue. But it doesn't necessarily make them smarter. Some were either unaware or had forgotten that they could use such analog solutions as the telephone book to help them reach out to the outside world. Nearly half--47%--said the Internet made it easier to manage personal and professional relationships. Many said that relationships with friends suffered from a lack of communication, but 27% said they got around that in part by making more phone calls. During their time away from the Web, their consumption of other media increased: 21% watched more TV, 20% more movies, another 20% said they read more newspapers and 6% listened to the radio more often. Two other studies on this topic were released recently. One, the Digital Future report from the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future at the University of Southern California, was released this week. The other comes from the Pew Internet and American Life Project and was released last month. Both made me feel a bit vindicated for enduring the derision of my colleagues a decade ago.

Ronald Reagan in 1989 called information "the oxygen of the modern age." And it's increasingly clear that the Internet is the dominant delivery system for that oxygen, though it's less clear exactly how many Americans are using it. The Digital Future report estimates that more than 75% of Americans are using the Internet in some way. That's high compared to the most recent guess by Nielsen/NetRatings, which puts the number at 137 million, or about 47% of the U.S. population. A global estimate, this one from the Computer Industry Almanac, reckons that 934 million people are accessing the Net worldwide, and forecasts that the number will break the billion-user mark sometime in 2005. The Pew study bears out the findings of the Internet Deprivation study somewhat, finding that of those Americans using the Internet regularly, 88% say it plays a role in their daily routines, while 64% said their daily routines would be disrupted if they couldn't use the Internet. It's also turning out to be a huge impact on American media consumption habits. The Annenberg Center's Digital Future study found that Americans now spend an average of 12.5 hours per week online, up from 9.4 hours in 2000. And that time is eating directly into TV-viewing habits. Non-Internet users spend an average of 16.2 hours per week in front of the TV, compared to 11.6 hours for Internet users. But Internet users consume more of other kinds of media than nonusers, the Digital Future study found. They listen to more recorded music--6.1 hours per week versus 4.8 hours for nonusers. They also rent more movies and go to movie theaters more often. And yet there are still plenty of people not using the Internet. The Digital Future Report reckons that 24% of Americans aren't using the Internet at all. Within that group, 40% say they either don't have a computer or have one that's not up to the job, or say they don't know how to use it, or they think it's too expensive. And what of those two former colleagues who so maligned my Internet fixation ten years back? I've kept in touch with them over the years. Both are not only regular but heavy Internet users, who couldn't do their jobs without it, and both have long since forgotten their dismissal of the medium they now can't do without. Funny how that works.

Won't the Democrats the people of the future, while the Republicans were the people of the past?
Why?
Kerry leads online
How are the campaign sites linked?
* Kerry's campaign site:.......193,000 or 56.55%
* Bush's campaign site:.......128,000 or 37.50%
* Nader's campaign site:........20,300 or 5.95%

How was the media coverage of the candidates evoving during the last 16 days?
And what about Kerry's media coverage?

Candidate..September 8, 2004......September 24, 2004..Differential
* Kerry.......98,000 or 78.48%........101,000 or 73.91%........-5.82%
* Bush.......22,100 or 17.70%..........29,100 or 21.29%.....+20.28%
* Nader.......4,780 or ..3.82%............6,560 or ..4.80%......+25.65%

While the other candidates seem to have understood, they have to use media in a more effective way, we are leading the game since the beginning!

This post was modified by Lucas Wyrsch on 2004-09-25 03:22:18

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jackgrimes2004 Date: Sep 25, 2004 2:06am
Forum: election_2004 Subject: Re: How to defeat Bush?

Clinton was scum. Bush is scum and if this maggot Kerry is elected, he'll be even worse than this asshole Bush. That's the pattern we seem to have set for ourselves by electing these fake plastic men, from the old established parties.

Like Laura Bush, Heinze is a drunken whore but, unlike the pretended Mrs. Bush, she's also a nut. If, Kerry gets elected, pack your bag and leave this country a.s.a.p. because that bitch he's married to will have him nuke the first country, she believes insults her honor (as if the gold digging slut, had any honor to insult).

VOTE FASCIST 2004!!!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Lucas Wyrsch Date: Oct 9, 2004 11:51pm
Forum: election_2004 Subject: Re: How to defeat Bush?

Help is on the way!
Question of the Day: Who won debate?

Did George W. Bush or John Kerry score the most points with you?

Who won the debate? * 1,764,700 responses

George W. Bush...38%
John Kerry.............62%

Two presidential debates and two clear wins. John Kerry is going to be the next president of the United States, and more people know it now!

George Bush had another chance to make his case to the American people. Again he failed.

Again, he showed that he is out of touch with reality on Iraq.
Again, he offered no plan for jobs and no plan for cutting the cost of health care.
Again, he pretended that our problems don't exist.
Again, he refused to level with the American people.

George Bush just doesn't get it, so he can't fix it.

John Kerry held George Bush accountable for the failures of the last four years. He demonstrated the strength and character we need in a president. He made it clear he could lead as commander in chief.

John Kerry offered real solutions to real problems. He told America the truth, and offered a plan for a fresh start on the economy, Iraq, and the war on terror. Simply put, he was presidential. Ironically, the president was not.


This post was modified by Lucas Wyrsch on 2004-10-10 06:51:54

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)